1. GFI Indonesia
From Assessment to Real
Action

2. Phase I
Testing the global Indicator that already been made. Developing the
A
lesson learned in the report and creating a future strategy. S
S
Phase II E
Contextualizing the global Indicator with the national S
context based on the lesson learned from the phase I.
S
M
Phase III
E
Conducting the assessment with the indicator; engaging related
multi stakeholder; formulating the action strategy N
T
A
Phase IV C
T
Advocating the Forest Governance Enhancement I
O
N

3. GFI Indonesia
(Phase III)
The progress:
1. Completed the element of quality each indicators
(total 149)
2. Developed worksheet paper for assessment
3. Conducted assessment on 2 province and national
4. Conducted campaign and involving multi
stakeholder
5. Developing the methodology of scoring
6. Compiling the narative report

4. Piloting Central
National
Nusa Tenggara
Barat
Kalimantan
Approach
2 District: 2 District:
Province - Murung Raya Province - Lombok Timur
- Pulau Pisau - Lombok Utara
Criteria
 Deforestation
 Respentative of small island and big island
 Institutional of forest management in the field
Phase III: Conducting Assessment

5. DKN
as National Advisory Panel + Scoring Team
What is DKN:
DKN is National
Central Forestry Council which
Kalimantan
Assessor: NGO +
National Assessor is a multi stakeholder
Academician council made by MoF.
The council consists of
5 constituent groups:
government, private
NTB Assessor:
Multi NGO + sector, academician,
stakeholder Academician local + indigenous
FGD peoples, and NGO
Strategy: Involving Multi Stakeholder

6.  Succession of The DKN Presidium hampered the
engagement to DKN;
 Incomplete answer from local assessor : commonly
yes/no answers without clear explanation;
 Short time for 149 qualitative indicators.
Obstacles

7. Rule Actor Practice
Transparency The rules is less Weak paradigm There are the
sensitive to the on transparency. implementation of
needs of the Low capacity of the transparency but
marginal people. the people, gov, has not yet
The rules is not and other systemized
comprehensive and stakeholders on Budget
detail. implementing the process does
transparency not reflect the needs
system of the local
community.
Participation There are Weak paradigm “pseudo
common rules but on participation. participation”
does not have the Low capacity of
technical rules and the people to
sanction if being participate.
violated.
Key Finding

8. Rule Actor Practice
Accountability Lack of the Weak of the law Lack of the
rules about the enforcement complaint system
complaint and Law capacity of and ADR
ADR mechanism. the government mechanism.
on the tenure
issues, esp. about
the plurality .
Coordination Centralized “Sectoral The
Regulation on minded” bureaucracy
vertical authority system is not
division. responsive to
Regulates community needs.
several The “formality
coordination body coordination” –
but less authority. outputs are hardly
ever obeyed.
Cont’d

9.  Formulating GFI’s concept paper: The Road Map for
Forest Governance Enhancement – the document will be
the basis of advocacy;
 Promoting The Indicators as a assessment tool for
Indonesian forest governance, as well as the safeguard
monitoring tool in REDD project;
 Capacity building for people to access the information,
including how to appeal if the government closes the
information – this the strategy to promote the government
developing the information system ;
 Formulating next step: Indonesian GFI’s strategy on
promoting forest governance enhancement after Phase IV.
Next Step: Phase IV

10. THANK YOU
contact us at:
dtresya@gmail.com
bob@telapak.org
www.tatakelolahutan.net

11. Kalimantan Tengah
Broaden The Network for Forest Governance
Enhancement in Indonesia!